I have read the first three chapters of Ingrid Bellemare's book "Owning and Training a Male Slave" and found it interesting and a bit disturbing.

If I understood correctly she is advocating the benefits to non consensual slavery and how to accomplish this. I do see some inherent contradictions in both.

Her approach involved a detailed interview process. Nothing wrong with that. She wants to make sure her slave is up for what she plans. Part of her regimen involves the usual piercing, tattooing and chastity of her slave once he accepts his servitude. This seems vary benign and common in the world of kink. But she subjects the slave to a photo session showing him in these modifications and assures him that if he choses at any time to leave or seriously not "perform" she will send the photos to a gay male master slave site to humiliate him and this "frighten" him for fear of humiliation of "changing his mind" or his behavior.

What disturbed me was that this was a blatent threat of blackmail which is clearly unlawful. She claims that she can be completely disassociated from this and is immune from sanction. I would find this very naive, even if she did not appear in the images of her slave on the gay site.

I don't think someone who submitted to "slavery", tattoos, and so forth would be intimidated by a gay site and would know that heterosexual... whom she thinks her slave is so closely identified with would be shamed to be seen on a gay site. As if this would be the ultimate unbearable humiliation for a straight man. It might if he had a wife, a job at a bank and was a member of the yacht club, but if he had been living as a chaste slave, without working, under her roof, away from family and friends, seeing only scene friendly people why would this embarrass him and intimidate him?

One might say that being so submissive it might. But one needs to note that if the slave is having a second thought or showing some form of independence he might ramp up his thinking to resentment and not be intimidated.

It should also be pointed out that although she considers herself to be a female supremacist, she would not chose a poor dumb clueless, un attractive specimen to take as a slave, but rather a mature, intelligent male who would take him maleness and his submissiveness seriously and with great thought.

While you can agree to play by new rules, you can detune your mind, your intelligence and or sense of logic. She might be able to intimidate an "inferior" person (male), but not an intelligent one. Blackmail is a very poor idea.

What she really wants is someone who consents and trusts her judgment and this requires her to be a proper Mistress and not abuse her slave. Whether this means he gives up all his own "needs" or that he lets her re program them is what he consents to. But it is rather hard to conceive of giving up basic human needs.

If sex is one of them, and part of the male behavior, perpetual chastity would turn a make into a eunich. So someone who does this obviously hates males or is intimidated and needs to control them to deal with their own insecurity.

Exercising the power to re program a person, somewhat is something that appeals to some dom types and subs as well. But it is equally dominant to control exploit the male sexuality and control it as opposed to destroy him.

Also she speaks about male hetero sexual slaves. This orientation is part of our nature and not something we would choose. We can practice homosexuality, but remain oriented toward females as the target of our desire. But the operative word is desire. If we have our desires crushed, destroyed or reprogrammed so that we are no longer aroused by women, we are asexual and turned to a eunuch. I imagine that it may be possible to reprogram the male to become aroused only from being whipped or any other "thing" done to him. It seems remotely possible. It doesn't seem possible to reprogram a hetero into a homosexual male or the reverse.

And finally the notion of non consentual slavery carries with it the idea that the slave might withdraw consent for something which will be occurring in the future of the relationship but cannot be revealed at the outset. You must consent to anything I do now and after this you cannot withdraw. Sounds nice and final, but why is this even necessary? I consent until you act like a raving lunatic and then I am out the door in a flash. Isn't consent enough? The burden then falls to the dom to be a good and decent slave owner, much as the slave envisioned.

To be honest, if the book is suggesting outright blackmail, then it starts to fall more into the category of femdom porn than femdom manuals. Blackmail of that sort is illegal and if a media blitz were to happen would severely undermine the credibility of the femdom community.

As I've been saying for a while now, too much of the female supremacy community is based around femdom porn, which is written for a very small minority of male subs- the "worthless worm" category. A worthless worm knows he's expendable (and believe me, the femdom proaganda would have you believe there's 1,000 or more male subs per domme), and has no choice but to cater to his mistress' every whim. Or he gets thrown out on the street, and will likely never be able to find another mistress.

So to be quite honest, if someone is looking for advice on female dominance, they should try going to munches or joining the local BDSM community. You'd be surprised at what you can learn, and how much of male dominance will also hold true to female dominance. And contrary to the popular belief, the BDSM community isn't loaded with male doms who want to try to enslave every woman they see.

The D/s "themed" relationship has really taken off in the last 10 years. Before that it was completely under the radar and rather uncommon. Now it is available to anyone and has become the icon of the kinky behavior which almost always seems to be anchored in "power exchange".

What this does is that it forces all kinky behavior into that mold. So if you are a xdresser type you most likely will identify as a domme or a sub, feminized sissy and so forth.

If you like leather clothing you are either the master/mistress or the bound slave type who is forced to dress to please the master. What happened to simply enjoying things WITHOUT placing it in a power exchange frame?

On the one hand it certainly makes the justification easier. I am doing (what I like) because my dominant insists that I do (or wear) this. All this is part of the "start up" or negotiation where the players discuss what floats their boat and then they go off and play. Rather than script everything the use of a safe word for the victim allows them to stop the action and have a re-do.

There is the notion of a top or a bottom which is neither dom nor sub, but like to dish out or receive pain. But the vast majority of players now mindlessly fit their desires into the power exchange meme.

In a sense this is understandable because our western industrial societies have been advocating a kind of equality of the sexes, where decisions are shared and responsibilities are shared and it not PC for the male (and even less common for the female) to dominate their partner. This harkens back to fundamentalism where this is still the paradigm. So the kink world embraces what the fundies do (power trips) but make it revolve around sexual pleasure, what the fundies don't do.

Most people don't have the time to devote to sexual things 24/7 except those in the biz. The rest of us see it as escape and this again reinforces the atmosphere to reject the expected norms in the vanilla world (day job) and gravitate toward what is not expected there - the worship of power.

And most of this is done is quite a lot of secrecy and under the radar. For some that is part of the draw while for others it is just an annoyance.

But the virtual world of kink is transforming the bedrooms of the world, even if you aren't seeing past the drawn curtains, you can bet that it's happening.

As ever, an intelligent and well thought out post and reply, blew me away - it's all far too much for me to think of in such depth, which leads me to think that the Author of the book you are reading lacks common sense along with a sense of humour.

As a grand sweeping statement from myself I would like to say that she is possibly of the "male hating" variety of Domme, who wishes to crush men within an inch or their life and their sanity.

Definitely not a book I would be tempted to read. Although I want to incorporate as much D/s into my life as possibly (when time allows) I ultimately love my pet and am completely in the Safe.Sane.Consensual group - the woman sounds slightly off her trolley!

Slavery contracts are completely useless as there are certain rights that you can not sign away....However...

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that a certain Mistress drew up and had in her possession a standard "Modeling" contract. Lets say the said contract states that Mistress owns the exclusive rights to any and all pictures from a particular photo session. Lets say that this includes publishing rights too. Now lets assume that the would-be slave signed such a contract.

This actually happens to models all the time. They sign a contract, nude "test photos" are taken for a shoot, often they are not offered the job. Years later when they become famous the photos surface. Depending on the contract they signed they have little recourse in the courts.

While I am not advocating nonconsensual slavery, I can easily see how a Mistress could be legally insulated from publishing embarrassing photos. You would not need the anonymity of the net for a Mistress to use Ingrid Bellemare's techniques.

That's true. There's a big difference between leaking nudes of a superstar from before they were famous (and perhaps had to make some seedy films to get their big break) to the tabloids, as opposed to using the threat of leaking them for leverage.

And to be honest, a good superstar could use it to play up the tragedy of how difficult things were before they got their big break, and end up coming out on top. Or at least a good actor could.

I kinda agree with Mistress Watchful, though. The author in question does strike me as the excessively man-hating kind, although I've seen the blackmail fantasy carried out way too often in bad femdom porn.